North Korea has a new toy

[Briosafreak]

Think Brazil & India would want nuclear power soon.
Which is rather sad as the background radiation would rise another few Bp

India already has a military nuclear capability, Brazil gave up on their military program years ago.

Another coincidence is the coming election of a successor for Kofi Anan at the U.N. who will almost for sure be the candidate from South Korea.

He was elected in the day of the explosion, and no doubt not by a coincidence it is indeed Ban Ki-Moon, the former South Corean Foreing Affairs Minister.

 

[Makenshi]

Think Brazil & India would want nuclear power soon.
Which is rather sad as the background radiation would rise another few Bp

Think twice pal, you shouldn't say my country (Brasil) is up to build a nuke without any evidence. Yes, we developed the world's most advanced centrifuge for uranium refinement, but with the exception of how the centrifuge works (industrial secret, we don't want to be copied ), everything is open for surprise inspections from International Atomic Energy Agency. Hell, we don't even have those cool nuclear submarines!

I can't guarantee for India, as their neighbor Pakistan has nukes and they're enemies. Guess maybe they'd want one
_____

Edit: Does anyone write pitsa? No, it's pizza! Sounds pitsa, writes pizza. Same with Brasil: sounds Brazil, writes Brasil. Got it?

 

[SuAside]

they dont want one, they already have nukes...

 

[Briosafreak]

Exactly...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons

 

[Member of Khans]

Hooray for stalinism! A People's Republic, a socialist state, building nukes while its citizens are starving. Ahhw, the irony.
Satire is dead, Kim Jong-il lives.

Okay, let's see how China struggles to handle this *reaches for some popcorn*

 

[Wooz]

Wh-What?

Comparing the cold war to some smalldick stalin wannabe boasting he managed to detonate a nuclear device is plainly retarded?

 

[Serifan]

NK is a threat, what happens if the do launch an attack, I am sure it will happen sooner or later. The leader is suffering from little man syndrome so the chances are high.

 

[zioburosky13]

NK is a threat, what happens if the do launch an attack, I am sure it will happen sooner or later. The leader is suffering from little man syndrome so the chances are high.

Kim Jong-il probaly wants to nuke his neighbour so he can unite it just like Vietnam.

 

[SuAside]

NK is a threat, what happens if the do launch an attack, I am sure it will happen sooner or later. The leader is suffering from little man syndrome so the chances are high.

Kim's missiles will be lucky if they make it to Japan... how exactly is that a threat to you Serifan?

besides, there is one thing that all dictators have in common: the will to remain in power. if Kim launches, there is no fucking way he'll survive the consequences.

 

[Stock]

It's fate. I mean, look at us. We're members of a forum that revolves around a post-apoc RPG, and we're discussing the possibilities of a nuclear war.

The world will be reduced to cinders, and us forumers will be the only ones knowledgeable enough to survive it. This will be great.

Water chip, here I come!

 

[Duckman]

Wh-What?

Comparing the cold war to some smalldick stalin wannabe boasting he managed to detonate a nuclear device is plainly retarded?

Hehe, yeah well I don't know

 

[Wooz]

Dude, either explain your position in the debate, with proper arguments, or have a nice warm cup of Shut The Fuck Up.

Now.

NK is a threat

A Threat? For who? SK? Please.

what happens if the do launch an attack, I am sure it will happen sooner or later.

Orly? An attack against whom? Either way, if they try to do anything, they get their own ass on a plate. China and Russia are the key players in this scenario. NK's main trade partner is China. China's main trade partner is Murika. As long as there's money and interests in China having a good relationship with America and the Western world, they'll do what suits Murkins and the Western World. Simple.

OMG WHAT HAPPENS IF MY GRANDMA GROWS WHEELS!?!

The leader is suffering from little man syndrome so the chances are high.

The dude's got an inferiority complex so he's going to nuke America or its allies. Brilliant logic there, Watson.

 

[Brother None]

NK is a threat in the same sense Iraq was a threat, i.e. the only threat is that someone is stupid enough to invade them based on their posturing. The biggest threat North Korea poses is executed by its collapse, which'll serve for a power shift and possible time of chaos in Asia.

Probably good for China on the long run.

article

 

[welsh]

This is yet more of that fucked up Korean policy that I debated with Rosh not so long ago.

Sanctions? Please. Like that's going to work. As if the Chinese won't sneak the food over the border? As if trying to blocade North Korea is really a viable solution. You might be able to intercept a ship carrying nuclear materials but you'll have a harder time trying to intercept the guys who know how to make these weapons and who could duplicate the process else where.

Kim's got a nuke and the next day he threatens to launch a nuclear tipped missile because the UN is considering sanctions.

As said this before- the problem here is that he expects everyone to pucker up. The answer is to smack him down.

I see two solutions- the short one and the long one-

Short solution-
Make a deal. Offer him a nice way out- says US$ 1 Billion to leave. (Hey it's the cost of a stealth bomber, not that bad really).

Tell him he's got 48 hours to leave or we begin to blast North Korea into the stone age. If he starts a war, we will hit back with more violence.

When the 48 hours is up and if Kim doesn't back down, begin taking down his military complex. We continue to keep the option open, and then hit them again and again.

Yes there will be civilian casualties, but frankly I would rather it be North Korean casualties than countries like Japan or South Korea that don't have nuclear weapons.

China won't be happy, but then counting on China to play hardball with its ally is kind of foolish, as is counting on China to safeguard our national security. Russia won't like it either. Oh well. These are the countries that we expected to keep North Korea under control. They blew and have no reason to bitch and moan about it.

Added bonus-
Perhaps it will give other countries reason to reconsider think about their nuclear ambitions. Perhaps they will be less willing to undertake expensive nuclear programs and spend their money on more realistic programs to improve their own societies and economies.

Truth is that most of these countries can't really sustain a real nuclear posture in any regard.


Ok, the long plan-

The long plan is to wait them out. North Korea may try to sell its secrets and tech to other countries- like Saudi Arabia or Iran. North Korea might try to use its weapons for blackmail so it can continue money laundering and other criminal enterprises which keeps the economy afloat.

But to actually use the weapons means it dooms itself. Eventually Kim will die of natural causes and someone else will take over.

Of course the person who takes over might be even worse than the asshole in place now.

Perhaps another option is to force the state to collapse and then let China and South Korea do the rebuilding. In the end, North Korea will need to be re-engineered anyway, so might as well start now.

 

[welsh]

In response-

If I was in Japan and Kim was playing "Look at me, I got missiles and nukes! This is better than having a big dick." Than I would be worried too.

The nice thing about nukes like Kim has is that that they don't have to be accurate. If you generally hit Tokyo, you still get to level Tokyo, and if you miss Tokyo and hit one of Japan's other cities, oh well.

It's no wonder that Japan is quietly thinking about developing its nuclear capacity. Japan could have developed its nuclear capacity for thirty years or more, and hasn't. Why? Because it felt safe under the US nuclear umbrella and there was no reaon too.

Unlike North Korea that can barely afford to build nukes (and if you can't really afford them, then why build them?) Japan can do so. And if you have a nuclear armed Japan, the next major country to reconsider nuclear weapons is China.

And if China starts to build more nukes than so will the US and maybe even Russia.

This is the security dilemma spinning out. Each worries about motives of the others, and being unsure and risk averse, they gamble on their own survival.

This is the real reason why North Korea is being a pain in the ass.

This is also a reason why the US has to play hardball and stand up for its alliance commitments.

We've heard all the condemnation and hard talk before- nothing happens.
Sanctions? That's another word for saying, "Oh you hurt my feelings, but I am too much a pussy to do anything about it, especially since you have nuclear weapons."

Bullshit.

This is why I favor a more "short term" strategy above. The US has to stay engaged in Asia. The US also needs to stand up for its alliances.

Seriously, everyone is like "Oh my god, the North Koreans have nukes." Jesus, so fucking what? Are you going to play pussy to that?

The Russians had nukes and said mean and nasty things. The Chinese have nukes and we've said mean and nasty things. For years we pointed these things at each other and made plans to use them.

Sorry Kharn, I know you are anti-american, but your "It's not a threat" is bullshit. Even if North Korea isn't a global threat, its a regional threat an if I were Japan I'd develop my own capacity- and that's destabilizing.

And even North Korea couldn't hit Japan with the missiles it has, it's just a matter of time before they have that capacity.

And Wooz, while you may think that North Korea is not a threat to someone- imagine this.

North Korea says to the US, as the missile flies over into Japan, "How much is Tokyo or Seoul worth to you? If you hit us, we'll take out Los Angeles."

And China? China laughs and laughs. It sees the US as being more reluctant to commit, it sees regional allies less secure in their relationship with China and it sees itself as the regional boss.

And when China thinks about taking Taiwan, they will look at what the US did with North Korea. Will the US play tough? No. Look what they did with North Korea. So what's to stop us from Taiwan, or Central Asia for that matter.


Fuck that. I say take them out now before the problem gets worse.

 

[Brother None]

Hah, you surprise me, but make me chuckle in actually being naive enough to think the US has either the military or the diplomatic muscle left to do anything whatsoever about this situation, welsh.

The US is irrelevant in this. So is the EU. The fact that the UN is the only place where they'll remain a factor of any relevance in this case says it all.

This is China's game, baby, they can decide to stop propping up North Korea at any moment. There are a lot of cons involved in this, and a lot of pros, and the entire situation depends pretty much on what *they* decide.

I say take them out now before the problem gets worse.

Ahahahaha! The idea that the US even vaguely has the capacity left to "take them out" gave me a good laugh. Thanks for the chuckle, chuckles.

PS: read the article I posted before commenting. kthxbai

PPS:

"How much is Tokyo or Seoul worth to you? If you hit us, we'll take out Los Angeles."

They can't. Duh.

 

[welsh]

Hah, you surprise me, but make me chuckle in actually being naive enough to think the US has either the military or the diplomatic muscle left to do anything whatsoever about this situation, welsh.

Bullshit. The US has the capacity to do what it wants in this. The fact that US land forces are deployed in Iraq is not as relevant as you may think. This would not be something fought by land armies, and if that was necessary, there are enough forces to hold North Korea and then the US could draft an army.

Hopefully it would not come to that, but if so, fine.

Otherwise the US has both the air and naval capacity to begin to level North Korea. How many bomber wings? How many cruise missile submarines? How many carrier groups?

The US is irrelevant in this. So is the EU. The fact that the UN is the only place where they'll remain a factor of any relevance in this case says it all.

The EU may be irrelevant, the US is not. Apples and Oranges. Both might be economic powers and both might be western democracies, but the EU hasn't the military capacity to make an issue here and short of its involvement in the Korean War, is unlikely to get involved.

The US is different. Since the Cold War the US has been the primary ally to Japan and South Korea in much the same way the US was an ally to Europe through NATO. In many ways the situation in Asia is more complex- in Europe you had fairly stable boundaries that did not exist in Asia.

And in many ways the North Korean problem is a consequence of the Cold War- the partition was a Cold War creation, one of the last. Time for the partition to end and Korea to be unified. Unified under North Korea or South? I prefer South.

Does the US have a role to play? Only if you want the US to engage in isolationism can you really argue that the US has no role.
The US is one of the principal trading and economic partners with western capital countries. One reason why you have not seen extensive arms racing in the region is that the US provided a public good to the area by securing Asian trade through long term deployments of its fleet.

US has no role? Perhaps a European might not see it, but than that's been a luxury of Europe for the last 50 years.

The UN will not be the answer to this problem because it is a conflict with fundamental differences between major powers. I don't know how Russia would go on this. China would veto Chapter VII actions, even though the French Ambassador said it was time for Chapter VII. SO you have a UN Security Council that will not be able to function on this issue.

Fine. The UN Security Council was made so major powers could talk and conflicts among them could be avoided, much like the Concert of Europe system. But major powers will disagree and when they do, the Security Council does not function- as occurred generally through the Cold War.

Doesn't matter. The US has security alliances with both South Korea and Japan. The UN Charter allows nations to act in ways to defend regional alliances. The UN Charter does not replace regional military alliances, but rather takes advantage of them.

North Korea threatens

This is China's game, baby, they can decide to stop propping up North Korea at any moment. There are a lot of cons involved in this, and a lot of pros, and the entire situation depends pretty much on what *they* decide.

China? China may be an up and coming power, but its still weak. COunting on this to be China's game is just plain foolish. This was Rosh's argument before when the missiles were launched.

As I recall Rosh argued, "China is the big party here and has an interest at stake." Well perhaps, but China has shown its hand by doing jack shit to stop this.

Either China did nothing because it couldn't- in which case its useless.
Or China did nothing because it didn't want to- in which case you can't trust China.
Or China...... I'm sorry I can't think of more excuses or explanations for China except that its either incompetent or fucking with us.

You may be happy if China calls the shots in Asia, but frankly, there are important allies in Asia, some democracies, some up and coming countries. I am not too keen on the idea of China "calling the shots" in Asia- not as long as its controlled by a communist party and runs over demonstrators with tanks.

China? Seriously Kharn, you count on China? How about that big slick of slime that floated down a Chinese river right into Russia not so long ago.

This is China. I am hoping that their failure here is just them being incompetent, but that's giving them the benefit of the doubt.

I say take them out now before the problem gets worse.

Ahahahaha! The idea that the US even vaguely has the capacity left to "take them out" gave me a good laugh. Thanks for the chuckle, chuckles.

PS: read the article I posted before commenting. kthxbai

PPS:

"How much is Tokyo or Seoul worth to you? If you hit us, we'll take out Los Angeles."

They can't. Duh.

Perhaps not yet. Soon?
Its nice to be in Europe which is inconsequential to this mess. It's also easy to sit back, laugh, say "Oh the US can't do shit."

But that's Europe- the continent that couldn't manage Yugoslavia.

The US military was built on the notion of fighting at least two wars at the same time and still have the ability to deal with regional crisis. During the Vietnam War the US fought a nastier war than is currently fought in Iraq, sustained its NATO commitments and was still able to intervene elsewhere when it had too.

Don't be so sure that the US still can't do this. It can manage it. It might be costly and it might be painful, but it can be done.

 

[Brother None]

Bullshit. The US has the capacity to do what it wants in this. The fact that US land forces are deployed in Iraq is not as relevant as you may think. This would not be something fought by land armies, and if that was necessary, there are enough forces to hold North Korea and then the US could draft an army.

Hopefully it would not come to that, but if so, fine.

Otherwise the US has both the air and naval capacity to begin to level North Korea. How many bomber wings? How many cruise missile submarines? How many carrier groups?

So your plan against NK's nuclear capacity is to...bomb it?

Wow, I'm sure South Korea and Japan will really like that plan a lot.

Think, McFly! North Korea has a professional standing army of 1.2 million soldiers, they do *not* fear an American invasion. Bombing them? Are you shitting me? Who has the most to lose in an exchange of bombs? What the hell is NK supposed to fear? That you'll drop a bomb on a nuclear reactor? Not happening.

As for the US' military capacity...there's a joke.

The EU may be irrelevant, the US is not. Apples and Oranges. Both might be economic powers and both might be western democracies,

Yeah, 'coz that was totally my basis of comparison.

but the EU hasn't the military capacity to make an issue here and short of its involvement in the Korean War, is unlikely to get involved.

Good thing too.

Only if you want the US to engage in isolationism can you really argue that the US has no role.

Heh, not hardly. The biggest influence the US can exercise here is done "through" China. South Korea and Japan are only major players as US army bases-holders, and those army bases are not a significant threat to anyone.

You're approaching this from the wrong optique. You're asking yourself "Should the US do something?" whereas the right question is "Can the US do anything?" Answer: nope.

The US is one of the principal trading and economic partners with western capital countries. One reason why you have not seen extensive arms racing in the region is that the US provided a public good to the area by securing Asian trade through long term deployments of its fleet.

Ok, and a lack of extensive arms race is proven right by this situation *how* exactly? By leaving Japan and South Korea helpless? Wow, WELL DONE.

US has no role? Perhaps a European might not see it, but than that's been a luxury of Europe for the last 50 years.

Your weak stab makes me chuckle, again. I'm glad my sense of reality is more extensive than that, though.

The UN will not be the answer to this problem because it is a conflict with fundamental differences between major powers.

I never said it would be.

I don't know how Russia would go on this.

Russia doesn't care. It doesn't have any reason to. Russia, unlike the US, knows the strings are being pulled by China and, also unlike the US, has a viable line of dialogue with China on this. They're fine, but unconcerned. If NK makes a move, they'll just flatten it.

"But Kharn, you just said that's not a viable option."

No, I just said it wasn't a viable option for the US because they're too deeply entrenched. Russia has no reason to feel the same way.

China would veto Chapter VII actions, even though the French Ambassador said it was time for Chapter VII. SO you have a UN Security Council that will not be able to function on this issue.

Could you stop talking about the UN Security Council? It's nearly as irrelevant as the US here and I never stated otherwise.

China? China may be an up and coming power, but its still weak. COunting on this to be China's game is just plain foolish. This was Rosh's argument before when the missiles were launched.

As I recall Rosh argued, "China is the big party here and has an interest at stake." Well perhaps, but China has shown its hand by doing jack shit to stop this.

Excellent lack of understanding of the regional situation on display there, welsh. Again, wrong optique. You're asking "What can China do about NK?", whereas the right question is "How much does NK rely on China."

Answer: for the full 100%. The US may be sweating about threats and dangers, all China has to do is pull the plug and watch the resulting collapse. The question is; what do they have to gain from this?

North Korea is fucking itself up the butthole with these kind of tests. China has no reason to prevent them, but China won't be happy about it either. The more NK pushes this kind of stuff, the more China leans towards pulling the plug. Endlosung!

You may be happy if China calls the shots in Asia,

That's funny because I didn't even vaguely indicate that, but nice straw man.

Happy has nothing to do with it, but excuse me if I don't let my sense of idealism impede my sense of realism.

China? Seriously Kharn, you count on China? How about that big slick of slime that floated down a Chinese river right into Russia not so long ago.

Wow, complete irrelevant factoid. THANKS!

This is China. I am hoping that their failure here is just them being incompetent, but that's giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Failure, what failure? What the hell are you talking about man? Have you even looked vaguely closely at the situation? What in Frith's name gives you the idea China had any reason to do anything about this situation so far? They love NK, man, it's their buffer against agressive US militarisms. Whose fault is that? Not China's, I'd say.

Perhaps not yet. Soon?

Not likely, but you can float along on Bush's spookisms as much as you want. Good going, Repuboboy.

Its nice to be in Europe which is inconsequential to this mess. It's also easy to sit back, laugh, say "Oh the US can't do shit."

Argumentum ad Hominem. And an argumentum ad ballacum. I'm thinking your capacity of logical thought is severely impaired on this issue, welsh.

I'm not going to keep saying "realism and idealism are seperate things", though, please figure it out yourself already.

But that's Europe- the continent that couldn't manage Yugoslavia.

Oh, wow, *another* irrelevant factoid. Try keeping on topic, hmmm?

The US military was built on the notion of fighting at least two wars at the same time and still have the ability to deal with regional crisis.

No it wasn't. Prove this.

During the Vietnam War the US fought a nastier war than is currently fought in Iraq, sustained its NATO commitments and was still able to intervene elsewhere when it had too.

Ok, nice going with the apples and pears there. The US has developed in a lot of directions since the end of the Cold War, and its capacity to deal with multiple or even any struggle has been severely impeded during the Clinton era and even moreso during Bush Jr. This isn't speculation, it's fact.

Ask yourself this question: how much money does the US have left in its budget to support its military? Of the debt made to support the military, who is the major money-shooter? Hey, would you look at what impending superpower is rearing its ugly head again there. Surprise, surprise?

Good job keeping the world safe, though. Fnurk.

Don't be so sure that the US still can't do this. It can manage it. It might be costly and it might be painful, but it can be done.

Nope, sorry. Go and check on military budgets, available manpower and popular support of wars in case you want to go into the "draft" thing (which I really suggest you don't), then come back and try and make a statement like that again without cracking up.

 

[S]

Unlike North Korea that can barely afford to build nukes (and if you can't really afford them, then why build them?) Japan can do so. And if you have a nuclear armed Japan, the next major country to reconsider nuclear weapons is China.

Don't think many people would be happy with an nuclear armed Japan. Since many japanese people still belief what they did in the WW2 was right.

And when China thinks about taking Taiwan, they will look at what the US did with North Korea. Will the US play tough? No. Look what they did with North Korea. So what's to stop us from Taiwan, or Central Asia for that matter.

Thought US has clearly announced that Taiwan is a state of china and that it would not support taiwan to become independent. Don't think China would use military actions to reclaim taiwan... all what needs to happen is the next party/president of Taiwan to be one that doesn't want independence (yes they exist ... suprised ?)

 

[welsh]

I think a lot of folks would be afraid of a nuclear armed Japan. As for Taiwan, the US has been keen on a peaceful resolution of the Taiwan issue. In contrast China has stated it is willing to use force to reclaim Taiwan.

To Kharn-

I actually suggested that the US be willing to make a credible threat to North Korea of going to war, yes.

My suggestion was to offer a way out. If China wants to help, let them take Kim. He's there ally and it helps resolve the problem.

And if North Korea doesn't budge, yes begin the bombing and begin removing Kim's military ability until he caves.

Will South Korea or Japan go for it? I am not sure if Japan or Seoul really want to be subject to nuclear blackmail. Kim has threatened to strike with his missiles- that's a threat.

The problem here is that everyone lets him get away with it. Sanctions? China is not going to starve North Korea and if China is willing to turn the blind eye, the North Koreas could move their technology out through China.

As for your comparison with Europe, your comparison was shit to begin with. EU has nothing to do with this because the EU is more concerned with its own issues. What happens in Asia? Less imports from South Korea or Japan?

What can the US do- it can level North Korea to the ground. But it won't be cheap and it won't be easy. But it can be done.

Japan and South Korea are defenseless? What are you smoking? Japan's small defense budget (about 1% of GNP) still outstrips most of the world.

US military capacity-
There are roughly 150K troops in Iraq. The US Military is over 1 million strong in the US alone, add another 80K in Asia, add nearly . The US marines is larger and more capable than the Israeli military. Check for yourself so you can get your facts straight .

Oh and if those bases were not useful to anyone, than its ironic that North Korea has been trying to get the US to get those bases closed for years. Apparently they think those bases matter?

Why? Because those forces are a tripwire force for a potential invasion. If North Korea invades, it promises massive US retaliation. These are also forward bases for US deployments abroad in order to safeguard sealanes and provide confidence to Asian allies.

So what? You're saying Russia would flatten China?
You're suggesting China would flatten North Korea?

Excuse me? China is economic competitor with South Korea. North Korea has been an ally of China. You expect China to do what? What the fuck does China care if South Korea and Japan are threatened? Only perhaps if Japan considers arms racing will China take it seriously. And what does China get- more reason to build an army, more reason to be belligerent?

A bit short-sighted Kharn.

As for the US 21/2 war doctrine- It's existed for about 40 years in one form or another, begun under Kennedy and followed under Johnson, changed to 1 1/2 war under Nixon, back up to two wars and now is being reconsidered.

. The two-war doctrine was born out of the rubble of the Pentagon’s Cold War strategy, which for 40 years had envisaged the Third World War being fought on the plains of Germany.
.....

The current strategy is known in the Pentagon as “one four two one”. The figures refer to: the defence of the homeland; the ability to deter attacks in four separate areas of the world; the ability to defeat two adversaries in wars; and the ability to defeat one of those latter two so comprehensively that its capital is captured and government overthrown.

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=6750

If the US wanted to fight this war it could. Under present situation in Iraq and Afghanistan (while maintaining nearly 100K trooks in Europe an 80K troops in Asia) it would require greater expense and probably a draft.

Could it be done? Yes.

But the current administration is too half assed to do anything, especially since it lives out of China's pocket.

Your best argument against US activism here is that China owns much of the US debt. That is probably why the US will sit on its ass and do nothing. Thanks to this president, the US is up to its ass in debt and much of it owned by China.

But the crux of your argument is-

(1) the US is incompetent and incapable of doing anything- which is clearly your typical bullshit anti-Americanism.

(2) China should do everything because its the only country that can. Which equals a whole lot of nothin.

(3) The logical conclusion is that the US should just get out of Asia. And thereby screw its main allies in Asia and abandon its strategic interests to.... China and maybe Russia.

Fuck that.